Chess is all about patterns? • page 3/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

@Sarg0n
No, I don't need to, because that was not was I was commenting. Chess include calculating many moves ahead. That is something different than to recognize patterns. Whenever someone says, x is only y, they are usually wrong, or they are saying something that is to generalized to be make any sense.

@Sarg0n No, I don't need to, because that was not was I was commenting. Chess include calculating many moves ahead. That is something different than to recognize patterns. Whenever someone says, x is only y, they are usually wrong, or they are saying something that is to generalized to be make any sense.

CM Sarg0n

#22

And the assessment of the calculated positions is not „stored“ in chunks resp. the calculating process itself?

Youcandothis

#23

@Sarg0n
That's a more wide definition of a pattern then makes any sense. You could as well say that everything is patterns. I don't agree on that, because I want the word pattern to have a specific and useful meaning. A pattern is something like an opening, a fork, a simple end game type. But though processes are something different.

@Sarg0n That's a more wide definition of a pattern then makes any sense. You could as well say that everything is patterns. I don't agree on that, because I want the word pattern to have a specific and useful meaning. A pattern is something like an opening, a fork, a simple end game type. But though processes are something different.

jupp53

#24

@Youcandothis

"Pattern" is part of a scientific model about the organisation of the working human mind, especially in memory. So it is more general than chess. Pattern in everyday speech is something different, more about repetition, less about processing.

So you can define it your way. Then the term is less dynamic. Nothing is wrong with this. The problem lies in using the same word for completly different content, which happens everyday. So the question of the TO gets a clear 'no' from your side and a cautious 'maybe' from my side. From this point I'm more interested in the consequences for learning and playing on the practical level.

@Youcandothis "Pattern" is part of a scientific model about the organisation of the working human mind, especially in memory. So it is more general than chess. Pattern in everyday speech is something different, more about repetition, less about processing. So you can define it your way. Then the term is less dynamic. Nothing is wrong with this. The problem lies in using the same word for completly different content, which happens everyday. So the question of the TO gets a clear 'no' from your side and a cautious 'maybe' from my side. From this point I'm more interested in the consequences for learning and playing on the practical level.

nayf edited

#25

A source of confusion is whether "pattern" and "chunk" denote static positions only, or also dynamic sequences, e.g a series of moves and counter-moves. I believe a psychologist would categorise a memorised sequence with variations as also a pattern or chunk in the relevant sense. Simple examples would be how to execute a smothered mate with N and Q, mating a K with two rooks, and for that matter numerous other common mates. Then all the KNOWLEDGE a good player has of openings, middle and end games includes dynamic patterns: if opponent does this, I do that, but if instead he does that, then I play this, etc.

Computer analysis of one's own games is a useful method for acquiring patterns, whether static or dynamic. It is like having a 3200-rated personal coach point out every position where you could have done better, and answer any question you may have: why not this, what about that, what if he does this, etc.

A source of confusion is whether "pattern" and "chunk" denote static positions only, or also dynamic sequences, e.g a series of moves and counter-moves. I believe a psychologist would categorise a memorised sequence with variations as also a pattern or chunk in the relevant sense. Simple examples would be how to execute a smothered mate with N and Q, mating a K with two rooks, and for that matter numerous other common mates. Then all the KNOWLEDGE a good player has of openings, middle and end games includes dynamic patterns: if opponent does this, I do that, but if instead he does that, then I play this, etc. Computer analysis of one's own games is a useful method for acquiring patterns, whether static or dynamic. It is like having a 3200-rated personal coach point out every position where you could have done better, and answer any question you may have: why not this, what about that, what if he does this, etc.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#26

I can strongly recommend to read those three links given in #15. I mean you are still entitled to disagree but it sounds that some of you haven’t read them.

In particular, this one is a nice synopsis: http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/chunking.htm

... Chess masters have access in their memory to a large database of these stored chess patterns, or chunks as they are called. These chess chunks are associated with plausible plans and ideas as they play over a game of chess and try to recall past patterns. A chunk usually consists of 3 to 6 pieces, and the size of the stored chunks is positively correlated with skill. Both novices and masters can retain as many as 7 (plus or minus 2) chunks in short-term memory, but the more skilled players can make better use of their short-term memory because they have the right chunks available, have more experience, and have practiced longer. Thus, the difference in chess skill is based on differences in the number and the size of the chunks stored in long-term memory. ...

I can strongly recommend to read those three links given in #15. I mean you are still entitled to disagree but it sounds that some of you haven’t read them. In particular, this one is a nice synopsis: http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/chunking.htm ... Chess masters have access in their memory to a large database of these stored chess patterns, or chunks as they are called. These chess chunks are associated with plausible plans and ideas as they play over a game of chess and try to recall past patterns. A chunk usually consists of 3 to 6 pieces, and the size of the stored chunks is positively correlated with skill. Both novices and masters can retain as many as 7 (plus or minus 2) chunks in short-term memory, but the more skilled players can make better use of their short-term memory because they have the right chunks available, have more experience, and have practiced longer. Thus, the difference in chess skill is based on differences in the number and the size of the chunks stored in long-term memory. ...